Vermont lawmakers have once again introduced legislation to ban possession of “semiautomatic assault weapons,” marking at least the fifth such attempt in roughly a decade. The bill, S.167, would make it a crime to possess firearms meeting a features-based definition, punishable by up to one year in jail, a $500 fine, or both.

The pattern is familiar. The policy is familiar. The outcome, historically, has also been familiar: none of these bills have become law.

What S.167 Actually Does

The bill is blunt: “A person shall not possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.”

The definition uses a features-based approach and reaches further than most people realize. It covers semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines and have features like a folding stock, pistol grip, or threaded barrel. But it also covers semiautomatic pistols with features such as a threaded barrel, barrel shroud, or magazine that attaches outside the grip — meaning many commonly owned handguns fall within scope.

This isn’t just about AR-15s. That part tends to get buried.

The bill exempts law enforcement and military personnel. It contains no grandfathering provision. Own a qualifying firearm the day before passage? You’re a criminal the day after. That’s not an accident — it’s a legal posture that appears designed to force constitutional litigation rather than solve a Vermont-specific problem.

It takes effect immediately upon passage.

Sponsors of S.167:

• Sen. Alison Clarkson (D-Windsor) — lead sponsor
• Sen. Thomas Chittenden (D-Chittenden Southeast)
• Sen. Ann Cummings (D-Washington)
• Sen. Martine Gulick (D-Chittenden Central)
• Sen. Ruth Hardy (D-Addison)
• Sen. Wendy Harrison (D-Windham)
• Sen. Virginia Lyons (D-Chittenden Southeast)
• Sen. Joseph Major (D-Windsor)
• Sen. Andrew Perchlik (D-Washington)
• Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (D-Chittenden Southeast)
• Sen. Anne Watson (D-Washington)
• Sen. Rebecca White (D-Windsor)

A Recurring Legislative Exercise

S.167 is not new thinking. Similar proposals have surfaced repeatedly:

2013: S.32 proposed banning manufacture, possession, and transfer of semiautomatic assault weapons. That version at least included grandfathering for weapons lawfully possessed on the effective date.

2020: S.259 took a narrower approach, proposing possession bans at specified locations rather than statewide.

2024: Two bills — S.239 in the Senate and H.582 in the House — again proposed straight possession bans.

2026: S.167 continues the pattern.

None became law. Yet here we are again.

Every bill introduction consumes resources: drafting, staff review, committee scheduling, testimony, legal analysis. The cumulative cost of repeatedly introducing substantially identical legislation that consistently fails is unknown — but it isn’t zero.

🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁

Disconnected From Vermont’s Actual Problems

Vermont has low gun homicide rates. The firearms involved are overwhelmingly handguns already addressed by existing law. Rifles matching S.167’s feature definitions are statistically irrelevant to Vermont crime.

Enforcement would be almost entirely complaint-driven or incidental — a traffic stop, a domestic call. That means selective enforcement by definition, applied unevenly based on who gets noticed.

Meanwhile, housing costs are crushing working families. Property taxes are driving out the productive middle class. Rural EMS is hanging by a thread. Schools are consolidating under fiscal stress.

This is what legislative oxygen is being burned on.

The Constitutional Landscape

Vermont’s Article 16 states: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.”

The text doesn’t draw a bright line between permissible regulation and unconstitutional infringement. That question, if S.167 ever passes, falls to the courts.

At the federal level, the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision established that gun regulations must be justified by historical tradition. But SCOTUS has repeatedly declined to rule on whether state assault weapon bans survive that test.

On June 2, 2025, the Court denied review in Snope v. Brown, a challenge to Maryland’s ban. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have granted review. Justice Kavanaugh wrote separately, signaling the Court may take up the issue “in the next Term or two.” Not a blessing, not a strike-down — a punt.

A year earlier, the Court punted on Illinois’ ban in Harrel v. Raoul. Justice Thomas wrote that AR-15s are “in common use” and the Court should intervene if the Seventh Circuit ultimately upholds the ban.

The practical reality: the governing test is Bruen’s historical inquiry, but SCOTUS hasn’t delivered a definitive answer on assault weapon bans. States like Vermont are legislating into legal uncertainty — and some legislators appear to be doing so deliberately.

The Oath Question

Vermont legislators swear to support the state constitution. Does introducing a bill that arguably conflicts with Article 16 violate that oath?

Legally, no. The oath binds legislators to operate within the constitutional system, not to personally certify every bill is constitutional. Courts decide that. Legislators propose; courts dispose.

But there’s a difference between legally permissible and intellectually honest. Legislators often know a bill is constitutionally vulnerable and proceed anyway — to signal to a base, force litigation, or shift the Overton window.

That’s not perjury. It’s strategy.

What Happens Next

S.167 will move through committee, generate testimony, consume hours, and — if history holds — fail to reach the governor’s desk.

Then the same legislators, or their successors, will return next session with a new bill number and the same language.

The firearms targeted are statistically irrelevant to Vermont crime. The enforcement mechanism guarantees selective application. The constitutional footing is unsettled. And the opportunity cost — measured against Vermont’s actual, urgent problems — goes unaccounted.

At some point, the question stops being whether you support or oppose such bans. It becomes: is this governing, or is it theater?

If you found this information valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Instagram

#fyivt #VermontPolitics #SecondAmendment #GunRights

Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!

Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!

Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!